Saturday 11 December 2021

Ram Singh Nehra – a Wembley Indian in the 1930s – Part 2

Philip Grant continues his Guest series.

 

 Welcome back to this story of an Indian solicitor who lived in Wembley around 90 years ago. If you missed Part 1, you can find it here

 

We left Ram Singh Nehra when he was standing as a Labour candidate for Fryent Ward, in elections for the new Wembley Council in March 1934. I asked: ‘would the people of Wembley in the 1930s vote for a man who wasn’t white?’ The answer was “yes”, but not quite enough of them to win him a seat on the Council. Whether his colour meant that he didn’t receive the small number of extra votes which would have seen him elected is something we will never know.

 

The Fryent Ward election result, from the “Wembley News”, 30 March 1934. (Brent Archives)

 

The Fryent Ward count, at Wembley Council’s Park Lane School on the evening of the election, must have been a tense affair. The result was very close, with only 35 votes separating Mr Crook, who topped the poll, from his fellow Labour candidate, Mr Nehra, at the foot of the list. In between were the two representatives of the Ratepayers’ Association, both existing Kingsbury councillors. Mr Ashman, who’d been Chairman of Kingsbury U.D.C., was so shocked to lose his seat that he demanded a recount!

 


The “Wembley News” report about Labour’s 1934 Fryent Ward election campaign.

(From the local newspaper microfilms at Brent Archives)

 

The newspaper report above shows how good canvassing in Fryent Ward beforehand had helped the Labour Party to win a local Council seat in Kingsbury for the very first time. This enabled them to ensure that all their likely supporters, who might not have been able to get to the polling station at Fryent School without assistance, were taken there by motor car to vote! 

 

You might not expect that a “working class” party in 1934 could muster ‘a fleet of cars’ on polling day, but that is where Mr Nehra and his wide circle of friends played their part. Imagine the surprise of some residents, when a chauffeur driven limousine, with a coat of arms on its side, drew up outside their home to take them to the polling station! It had been loaned for the day by the Saudi Arabian Ambassador.

 

Sheikh Hafiz Wahba (and his limousine) in 1930. (Image from the internet)

 

Sheikh Hafiz Wahba was the Saudi Ambassador to the UK from 1930 until 1956. You may remember that he was one of the VIP guests at the Nehra’s Garden Party in July 1934, and he had come to know Ram Singh Nehra quite well. This was partly because Nehra’s Central Hindu Society saw Hinduism as a cultural identity much as a religion, and was keen on promoting Hindu-Muslim co-operation.

 

There is evidence of this from a 1935 report in “The Indian”, headed “Prophet’s Birthday”:

 

‘The Muslim Society in Great Britain held a reception on Wednesday, the 12th of June, at 8 p.m., at Portman Rooms, Baker Street, to celebrate the Birthday of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. His Excellency Sheikh Hafiz Wahba, the Saudi Arabian Minister to the Court of St. James’s, was in the chair. 

 

Proceedings began with a recitation from the Qoran. Before starting further proceedings, the following message from Mr. R. S. Nehra, the President of the Hindu Society, was read — To the President, British Muslim Society, London: 

 

Dear Sir,

Hearty congratulations on the celebration of the birthday of the Holy Prophet. His example is a beacon guidance to all human beings of the necessity, practicability and virtues of democracy in daily life. 

 

Sorry my wife’s serious illness prevents me from joining you all this evening.’

 

Sir Abdul Qadir in 1935. (Image from the internet)

 

Sir Abdul Qadir was a leading member of The Muslim Society at the time, and like Nehra was also born in Ludhiana. Nehra’s good relations with the Muslim community may well date back to his childhood. Although Ludhiana was in the 

 

Punjab, when Nehra was growing up there in the early 20th century only around 5% of its citizens were Sikhs. Of the rest, about two-thirds were Muslims and one-third Hindus. It is sad that Nehra’s good relationship with fellow Indians of a different religion was not widely reflected among the people of the sub-continent, when independence from Britain was achieved in 1947, and partition led to sectarian violence.

 

In a biographical article in “The Indian”, about ‘the editor’, Nehra described himself as ‘a man of very abstemious habits.’ He disliked smoking and drinking, and preferred lemonade to tea. Of his daily routine he wrote:

 

‘Even though he has been away from India for so many years, yet he is an early riser and starts work at six and never misses his morning bath. He takes pleasure in his work and that is why he works for 14 hours and sleeps for 8 and the rest of the time he employs in attending to daily needs and a little relaxation between the hours of 8 and 9 in the evening.’

 

He believed in devoting 10% of his profits and 5% of his time to charitable work and institutions. His hobbies were ‘building, books, journalism and social gatherings’, and his sporting interests were ‘swimming, tennis and driving.’ Both Mr and Mrs Nehra were keen tennis players (perhaps that is how they met, in Mombasa), and as the “Metroland” homes in Chalkhill Road were built on large plots, some would have had a tennis court in their back garden.

 

Aerial view of the Chalkhill and Barn Hill estates, March 1939, with “The Shalimar” arrowed.
(Source: Brent Archives)

 

Although Nehra claimed in his biographical note that ‘by temperament he is always cheerful and hospitable’, and that he did notindulge in anger or fiery outbursts’, he was not afraid to express his views quite forcefully. One regular feature of “The Indian” was his “Open Letters for the Public Good”, and he wrote them ‘without fear, favour or malice’. 

 

Being free to speak truth to power is an important part of any good democracy. One of his letters was to the newly appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies, in Stanley Baldwin’s National Government of June 1935. After giving ‘hearty congratulations on your appointment’, he encouraged the Minister to ‘follow the spirit expressed by His Royal Majesty the King in his memorable Jubilee message’, and respect the rights of all people of different classes, colour, creed and countries. He went on:

 

‘You know, Indians form a larger majority of immigrants in the Colonies than any other race. Owing to the peace-loving disposition of Indians, their legitimate rights and interests have so far not been well protected in any of the Colonies. The local white immigrants out of sheer short-sightedness and selfishness are ill-treating the British Indians in nearly all the Colonies. The local Governors often yield to the local influence of the white agitation and pressure. It is for you to keep the balance and assist or direct, as the case may be, the local governors to treat Indians justly and fairly. Remember that the interests of the Empire and world peace are more important and vital than the interests of a handful of Englishmen or Europeans in a Colony.’

 

Nehra was well aware of the injustices which could occur in the Colonies, because he was a Privy Council agent. That meant he could act as a legal representative, on behalf of people or companies appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. This acted as the Court of Appeal for cases decided in High Courts across the British Empire. 

 

“The Indian” included a section devoted to reports of Privy Council hearings. One interesting case was an appeal by a lawyer and a newspaper editor, seeking to overturn a judgement against them by the Allahabad High Court for contempt of court. Their “contempt” was publicly alleging that inferior judges had been appointed to the Allahabad High Court, and that better qualified candidates had been overlooked, because of their caste.

 

R. Nehra & Co are shown as the agent in a number of cases. In one, Nehra represented the respondent in an appeal by the Bombay Commissioner of Income Tax, against a judgement of the High Court in Bombay (Mumbai), where the point at issue was ‘whether the rights of a woman under a family settlement have been forfeited owing to unchastity.’

 

Through his magazine, Nehra published the results of all Indian students who had come to England to study law, as well as giving the overall results for Bar exams. One example from 1935 was: ‘Examined, 223; Passed,154 (Indians, 44)’. He also gave advice to Indians coming to here to study:

 

‘Do not buy or bring many suits with you from India, because they will not be used in England owing to their inferior cut and poor material. One or two pairs of shoes would be sufficient until your arrival in England. If possible, wait until you arrive here before you purchase your overcoat.’

 

As “The Indian” had a wide circulation among not just the worldwide Indian community, but also people in Britain with an interest in the sub-continent, it often carried “small ads”. Here are just a couple of typical examples:

 

INDIAN LADY medical student requires board lodging with a private family, 2 years’ course or more. Give full particulars. — Box 454, c/o The Indian. 

 

CEYLON STUDENT wants boarding house near a tennis club. — Write Box 458, c/o The Indian.

 

Nehra welcomed new Indian students to London with a reception at Veeraswamy’s in Regent Street. This was the capital’s first Indian restaurant, and had introduced Indian food to this country in the Indian Pavilion at the British Empire Exhibition, held at Wembley in 1924/25.

 

Veeraswamy’s Restaurant, in a BEE advertisement and at Regent Street. (Images from the internet)

 

This was Nehra’s advice on food to Indians coming here:

 

‘You may find some difficulty regarding food. There are many Indian Restaurants and Hostels that cater for Indians. At the beginning it will be of great help if you make use of these establishments, till you slowly get thoroughly accustomed to the western tasteless foods.’

 

As well as all of his other interests, Ram Singh Nehra still had political ambitions. This paragraph appeared in a newspaper in April 1936:

 

(Image from the internet)

 

Did Nehra stand for election to Parliament, and what other twists and turns did his life take in the late 1930s? Please join me next weekend, for the concluding part of his story.


Philip Grant,
December 2021.

Friday 10 December 2021

OPINION PIECE: Cllr Butt should think again about Brent Cabinet responsibility for safeguarding after Arthur Labinjo-Hughes' death

I checked with Brent Council today after the Kilburn Times wrote that Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader, was taking over Cllr Mili Patel's portfolio.  Patel stepped down from her role on Monday. I had been told something different by a usually reliable source at the council:

Could you clarify the details of which Cabinet members are taking over/sharing Cllr Patel’s portfolio as clearly Safeguarding is extremely importance as highlighted by the recent child murder case. The Kilburn Times has quoted Cllr McLennan as taking over the entire portfolio while I understood from my sources that it was shared between Cllr Stephens and Cllr Farbi.

I suspect it has been split between them and if so could you say who is responsible for each aspect.

Brent Council replied that they stood by their previous statement:

"Councillor Mili Patel has stepped down from her cabinet role to take time out. Deputy Leader, Councillor Margaret McLennan, will take over the portfolio.”

This give me cause for concern, not because I doubt Cllr McLennan's commitment and ability regarding safeguarding, but because of the responsibilities she already has, particularly at a time when she is working on the Council's budget for 2022-21.

This is now her portfolio with Cllr Patel's responsibilities added:

  • Finance / HR
  • IT / Digital transformation
  • Council Tax
  • Business Rates
  • Customer Services
  • Citizenship &Registration
  • Community Hubs
  • Legal
  • Performance
  • Members Enquiries / FOI / Complaints
  • Social Value
  • Equalities
  • Procurement
  • Safeguarding & Looked After Children / YOT
  • Social Work Teams
  • Early Help & Children’s Centres
  • Youth Service & Connexions
  • Troubled Families
  • Safeguarding in Schools
  • Corporate Parenting
  • SEND Pupil Referral Units
  • Alternative Education
  • Youth Parliament

 The case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes highlighted not just the dramatic impact of lockdown on family life and the impact of the loss of the usual monitoring by schools of vulnerable children, but also the years of cuts and under-investment in children's services.

These are dangerous times for children and could be a life and death matter. In Brent we have to remember the case of Victoria Climbie LINK and ensure that such a case does not happen again.

Over my career in education I have been responsibile both as a teacher and a governor for Safeguarding, Child Protection and Looked After Children. I thought that the splitting of responsibilities, that complemented existing ones held by Cllr Thomas and Farbi, was a sensible idea if it was not practical to appoint a replacement for Cllr Patel.

We do not know what the winter holds in terms of further lockdowns and potential school closures, but things do not look good. I urge Council leader Muhammed Butt to think again for the sake of our children.

See the history of Wembley Park on Olympic Way


 

It is good to see local historian and Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant and the Wembley History Society  publicly thanked for their contribution to the new Wembley Park local history mural.

The mural  is on the wall of the steps and ramp beside Number 1 Olympic Way, the office block that has been converted into accommodation.

 





Thursday 9 December 2021

Granville New Homes and the Ridge Report – Brent Council explains “discrepancies”.

 A “report back” blog by Philip Grant:


Some Granville New Homes images from the Ridge Report.

 

There was great interest in October, when Martin shared details of the scandal over Granville New Homes, where repairs to these South Kilburn flats would cost more than the blocks cost to build, only twelve years ago.

 

Proposals for these homes to be taken over by the Council from its company, First Wave Housing Ltd (“FWH”), were considered at an extraordinary meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on 7 October. Committee members were told that the repairs would cost £18.5m, but had to rely on a report which had been prepared for a Cabinet meeting the following week, and on information and answers given to them by Council Officers and Cabinet members. 

 

Title page of the Ridge Report.

 

The committee had not been allowed to see a copy of the report by the consultants, Ridge and Partners, who had carried out a detailed survey of the Granville New Homes buildings. Martin obtained a copy of that Report from Brent Council, under the Freedom of Information Act, and published it on “Wembley Matters” in November.

 

When I read the Report online, there seemed to be discrepancies between some of the details it showed, and what the Scrutiny Committee, and an earlier Audit & Standards Committee meeting, had been told. I added a comment below the 11 November blog, and sent a copy of that comment in an email to the two Committee Chairs involved, to draw those “discrepancies” to their attention.

 

I heard nothing more about it until 7 December, when I received an email from Brent’s Legal Director, saying: ‘The councillor, the Independent Chair and the Chief Executive have asked that I consider your email and respond and I will be in contact with you as soon as possible.’ I’ve now received her response, and as my original comment is “in the public domain”, I think it only fair that Brent Council’s explanation for the “discrepancies” should also be publicly available. I will set out my original comment, and the Council’s response below.

 

I will not comment further on them, other than to say that when a small number Senior Council Officers and Cabinet Members have so much power, I believe that they should provide full, accurate and clear information to the elected councillors whose scrutiny of their decisions is an important safeguard on behalf of the local community. You can judge for yourselves whether they did so over Granville New homes and the Ridge Report.

 

My comment of 12 November 2021 (under published copy of the Ridge Report):

 

‘There appear to be some discrepancies between the Ridge Report above, and how it was presented to Cabinet on 11 October 2021, in a report signed off by Brent's Chief Executive.



The opening paragraph of the report to Cabinet members says:

 

'First Wave Housing (FWH) has commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at FWH’s Granville Road, Princess Road, and Canterbury Road blocks (otherwise known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m. This makes the FWH business plan unviable.'

 

This clearly states that fire safety was investigated as part of the Ridge Report; but the report itself (see bottom of page 24 of the document in the blog above) says:

 

'Fire safety matters, relating to the cladding have not been commented on in this report as they are excluded from the scope. From what was seen, during the opening up of the cladding, there are a number of issues which should be further investigated by a façade specialist and fire engineer. These include possible combustible insulation and seemingly a lack of cavity barriers within the cladding system. The cladding systems should be reviewed, from a fire safety perspective, as a matter of urgency.'

 

Page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the budget cost estimates of the work identified as a result of this consultant's investigations:


'TOTAL COSTS by block:

Granville Road East £2,185,000
Granville Road West £2,475,000
Peel Square £4,550,000
Pilgrims Corner £4,435,000

TOTAL £13,645,000'

 

Clearly, there is a difference between the £13.645m figure in the Ridge Report which has now been disclosed under FoI (and which was not made available to the members of the Audit or Scrutiny Committees, when they considered the problems and proposed solutions over Granville New Homes), and the £18.5m figure in the report to Cabinet.



Was there a second specialist report on the fire safety issues, with the estimated cost of that remediation making up the almost £5m difference between the two figures?

 

If not, what is the explanation for that difference?

 

And if there was a separate fire safety defects report, why was that not mentioned in the report to Cabinet, and why has that report not been disclosed to councillors, or made public?’

 




Relevant extracts from the Ridge Report.


Brent Council response of 9 December 2021:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

 

Your email below was shared with David Ewart, the Independent Chair of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, by Cllr Lo.  It was also drawn to the attention of the Chief Executive by Cllr Sheth.  The Chief Executive, Cllrs Lo and Sheth and the Independent Chair have asked that I consider your email and respond.

 

 

Your email references reports considered by three council bodies, Audit and Standards Advisory (22 September 2021 (ASAC)) Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny (7 October 2021) and Cabinet (11 October 2021) and raises three areas of concern which I address below.

 


1. Commissioning of the Ridge Report

 

You are concerned that the Scrutiny Committee Report referred to the Ridge Report as being commissioned by First Wave Housing (FWH) while the Ridge Report itself refers to the report being commissioned by FWH and Brent Council.  You seek clarity as to who commissioned and paid for the report.

  

 

The council provides housing management services to FWH.  Therefore, FWH asked the council to commission the report on its behalf and the cost will be borne by FWH.

 

 

2. Ambit of the Ridge Report

 

You refer to the first paragraph of the Cabinet report, part of which reads: 
commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issuesand to the Ridge Report which refers to: “Fire safety matters relating to the cladding” being excluded from its commission. 

 

The paragraph you refer to in the Cabinet report is a summary paragraph and the detail behind that summary appears later in the report.  Paragraph 3.6 of the Cabinet report refers to the council’s own Housing Property Services presenting the result of fire risk assessments and intrusive investigations into fire safety concerns and to Ridge presenting the result of intrusive investigation into water penetration, cladding and window issues.   I consider this corrects any misunderstanding as to the scope of the investigations commissioned from Ridge that the summary paragraph may have led to. 

 

 

Further, the Ridge Report, makes reference to fire safety issues which happened to be observed during Ridge’s investigations and suggests that cladding systems be reviewed from a fire safety perspective as a matter of urgency.  The review had effectively already been undertaken following the Fire Brigade Improvement Notice and therefore included in the presentation by Housing Property Services referred to in the report.

 

 

3. Discrepancy in figures given for estimated costs of repairs

 

 

As you point out, page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the cost estimates as totalling £13,645,000 but the Cabinet, ASAC and Scrutiny reports refer to estimated costs of £18.5m.  You query why this is and whether there is a second specialist report on fire safety issues which accounts for the difference.

 

 

This figure of £13,645,000 is included in the £18.5m referred to in the reports.  As set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Cabinet report, that higher figure also includes the cost of fire safety work already undertaken and paid for by FWH, e.g. the waking watch over the premises and a new fire alarm system, and a contingency figure.  In addition, paragraph 3.9 make clear that the total figure is inclusive of VAT, which FWH and I4B, unlike the council, would be required to pay.  The final sentence of 3.9 should have read that the £18.5m is “based on” an estimated value from Ridge, but in the overall context of the paragraph I think the position was clear.

 

 

Although these elements are not explicitly referred to in paragraph 3.4 of the Scrutiny report, the Cabinet report was in the papers presented to the Scrutiny Committee and did contain this information.  This level of detail was not in the report to the ASAC, but as the report was a general update report of which this particular issue was only one element and pre-dated the matter being put to Cabinet as the decision maker, this is unsurprising.

 

 

At the time when Ridge were commissioned, they were aware of the fire safety issues identified through fire notices and the test results of the combustibility of the external wall system which had been carried out previously.  The Ridge Report and their cost estimate included the work to remediate these issues. The report of the test results does not include any costs.

 

 

In light of the above, I do not consider there is any reason to fear that members were misled by the reports as to the essential issues.  These were that the estimated costs to FWH of dealing with the issues identified in relation to Granville New Homes would render the company’s business plan unviable and an assessment of options for dealing with the situation was required as set out in the report. 

 

Best wishes

 

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations’

 

 

 

Prepared on behalf of: